luvulongtime
Striker
i'm picturing Bob as Hacksaw Jim Duggan in the builders yard swinging a piece of 4x2
-
The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.
New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts
- Thread starter Mr David
- Start date
- Status
KittenMittens
Midfield
Said it yesterday on 606, but there is so much wrong with the Short > Donald deal.
This has been bugging me this morning talking with my mates about the Athletic article.
Short ran up that debt. You may argue it was the club doing it, but it wasn't. It was Short using a loan mechanism to finance something he wanted to do, not the club as some sentient being. Even worse, he actually made himself a martyr at one point by then saying how good he was for doing so, so it's not really an argument that Short was benefiting from the perception that he was a benevolent owner, while simultaneously running up debt using the club as a vehicle. Ultimately he signed off on all of those debts and forced that position onto the club, never tried to cut costs or understand why we were operating at such a dramatic loss even while TV revenue went through the roof.
In our programme notes after Micky Gray called him out:
And this is the crux of it, if our owner takes us on and 'funds significant shortfalls' that result from his own mismanagement, his decisions and his desire to spend more than he is recouping, then why is the club left with a debt at the end of it?
Does the club get a proportion of the money he makes if he sells for a profit? No, cash isn't taken out of the seller's pocket and put into the club, at least not in real terms.
The club is passed to someone else as a clean slate for them. In this case, Short racked up hundreds of millions of debt funding his own mismanagement, and when the time came to pay it, he found two people who were willing to channel £25m to him out of the club's future revenue. As I say, if we wouldn't expect a departing owner to donate cash to us if they made a profit, why do we expect a departing owner to saddle us with their debt when they leave?
Donald and Methven then effectively used the club to give themselves an interest free loan that they sent to Ellis Short as part of this deal, and then wiped from their own liabilities before it was repaid, while simultaneously using it to inflate the purchase price they have not paid.
I have no sympathy for Donald here. He either had the money to pay Short and instead took £25m out of the club at a time when it was needed most, or he didn't have the money and misled everyone, including the EFL, as to his ability to buy the club. The one thing we can be sure of is that Ellis Short was in on either of those options and that he has ultimately benefited, with some evidence suggesting that another bid would have seen the entire debt written off and no parachute payments taken out of the club.
I don't believe in the Ellis Short benevolence myth, because he failed us twice. First when he left us drifting in the wind in 2017-18 causing a second consecutive relegation, and second when he sold us to Donald so he could recoup some of the debts that he had run up using the club's accounts.
This has been bugging me this morning talking with my mates about the Athletic article.
Short ran up that debt. You may argue it was the club doing it, but it wasn't. It was Short using a loan mechanism to finance something he wanted to do, not the club as some sentient being. Even worse, he actually made himself a martyr at one point by then saying how good he was for doing so, so it's not really an argument that Short was benefiting from the perception that he was a benevolent owner, while simultaneously running up debt using the club as a vehicle. Ultimately he signed off on all of those debts and forced that position onto the club, never tried to cut costs or understand why we were operating at such a dramatic loss even while TV revenue went through the roof.
Logon or register to see this image
In our programme notes after Micky Gray called him out:
And this is the crux of it, if our owner takes us on and 'funds significant shortfalls' that result from his own mismanagement, his decisions and his desire to spend more than he is recouping, then why is the club left with a debt at the end of it?
Does the club get a proportion of the money he makes if he sells for a profit? No, cash isn't taken out of the seller's pocket and put into the club, at least not in real terms.
The club is passed to someone else as a clean slate for them. In this case, Short racked up hundreds of millions of debt funding his own mismanagement, and when the time came to pay it, he found two people who were willing to channel £25m to him out of the club's future revenue. As I say, if we wouldn't expect a departing owner to donate cash to us if they made a profit, why do we expect a departing owner to saddle us with their debt when they leave?
Donald and Methven then effectively used the club to give themselves an interest free loan that they sent to Ellis Short as part of this deal, and then wiped from their own liabilities before it was repaid, while simultaneously using it to inflate the purchase price they have not paid.
I have no sympathy for Donald here. He either had the money to pay Short and instead took £25m out of the club at a time when it was needed most, or he didn't have the money and misled everyone, including the EFL, as to his ability to buy the club. The one thing we can be sure of is that Ellis Short was in on either of those options and that he has ultimately benefited, with some evidence suggesting that another bid would have seen the entire debt written off and no parachute payments taken out of the club.
I don't believe in the Ellis Short benevolence myth, because he failed us twice. First when he left us drifting in the wind in 2017-18 causing a second consecutive relegation, and second when he sold us to Donald so he could recoup some of the debts that he had run up using the club's accounts.
Last edited:
Zak's Dad
Striker
More to the point he won't comment on it because he avoids mentioning anything that could pit the club in a less than favourable light.
If he's forced to he'll deflect it to some other topic or spin it.
Sons of The Wear
Winger
And then appointed a mixture of mates and yes men with absolutely no real credentials to occupy key positions on and off the pitch, at a club that needed a total revamp at all levels via the introduction of quality personnel who had proven pedigrees and the ability to take a historically famous football club, with a fantastic fan base, stadium and academy, forward in an exciting and ambitious manner.
The current owners hold no blame in SAFC becoming a Third Division club [that's what it is] as previous owners and staff caused that through their combined incompetence, and in some cases gross self-interest whilst being paid fortunes to fail and Moyes, Bain and Byrne were especially guilty in the eyes of most regular supporters, but the current incumbents have poured fuel onto the fire by an array of 'not fit for purpose' appointments and a constant stream of misinformation and patronising platitudes. Often SD and CM seem to be singing off separate hymn sheets, they do not seem close despite both being from Oxfordshire and Oxford United supporters, and the role of Sartori remains a perennial mystery.
And where, oh where, did the 'Dortmund Model' disappear to? Why did Tony Davison go to mid season-it remains unexplained. CM resigned last December for personal reasons, but of late has been giving interviews to various media outlets, and seems to be constantly performing a metaphorical hokey cokey-in, out, in out, shake SAFC about. So many questions, so few answers. Why?
D
Deleted member 30053
Guest
When the fanzines released their joint statements and we then had this little harem of “You don’t speak for me” supporters that popped up on social media I paid huge attention to the demographic of fans who were making these comments and the results were unsurprising. Along with your average happy clappers and your head in the sand types - most of whom have now cottoned on - there was a large swathe of them who were - let’s put it in a way so as not to cause offence - not the typical sort of person you find amongst the 4,000 travelling fans to Rochdale for example. Non match goers, exiles etc. People who are not witnessing this demise at first hand. For me - as many others have pointed out previously - if you genuinely support this regime then you are not someone who wants to see the club move forward and quite simply cannot have the clubs best interests at heart. I’ll stop short of saying you are not a fan as I understand some have been brainwashed and deluded by them to the point that they cannot see the wood for the trees. Selling their souls for a selfie or a bit of access. Really sad to see.
Last edited by a moderator:
More proof of lies from the owners
Zak's Dad
Striker
I absolutely get where you're coming from - there's plenty of finger pointing to be done about why we're here.
But the crux of it is that "we" - the fans / club did not sign up to anything and have no expectation of losses being absorbed or profits returned.
One owner sold the club to another owner who took it on with the terms agreed. Whether we have an opinion that the deal was good or bad is irrelevant.
They bought the club from Short on the terms they did, they thought they could still make it work.
They should have refused, renegotiated or walked away.
Short cannot be held responsible for the decisions made by the new owners. They are responsible for agreeing to the terms and conditions, they are responsible for their due diligence, they became totally responsible for it all the moment the contracts were signed.
fyl2u
Striker
Oh really? And when you say "more proof" I presume you actually mean "some proof", considering all-but-one examples of the rest of the "proof" has been pure bullshittery from the anti-SD mob?
Can you sum it up for me so that I don't have to go trawling through a 137-page thread to find out what it is?
C
Clean Bristow
Guest
Going to support them though, that is well out of the question. Doesn't even get consideration.
This is from a lad who works for WMS and was at a talk in with them
“At a talk in in Consett Donald said he didn’t know if FPP would want to keep him and Charlie around after they’d bought the club.”
Of course this wont be enough proof for you that it was a takeover
Also @Guinness Guzzler copied a report with quotes saying it was a takeover. Could you copy it over marra?
KittenMittens
Midfield
I have no problem with that, they are to blame for what came next, but Short knew that this plan involved taking a substantial amount of the club's future revenue and diverting it into his own pocket. That has been defended on the basis that it was a 'club debt', when in fact Short was happy to publicly state that he was funding us throughout his tenure.
So I see it as Short being to blame for selling to people willing to potentially harm the club, Donald and co for being willing buyers despite knowing they couldn't comfortably afford to do the deal without that money and it would leave the club without much needed money in the short term.
And finally, the EFL for allowing Short to personally hold the club to ransom by threatening to put us into administration if they didn't sign off on Donald buying us despite their clear reservations.
Zak's Dad
Striker
I agree, but 'we are where we are' - raking over the past decisions is for the book. They bought us on those terms and its ultimately their responsibility to sort it out.
Guinness Guzzler
Striker
I posted it earlier on mate, it was here New buyers put off by £20 million hole in accounts they definitely discussed a takeover and agreed a price. God knows what happened after
Cheers. There it is, yet more proof @fyl2u
Father Jack Hackett
Striker
Again, absolutely bang-on and I've said the same myself. Surely no-one with the club's best intersts at heart would back these pair of wankers who have decimated one of the best academies in the country and have us marooned in League One after having, in their words "the biggest budget the league has ever known".
They bought the club with money they didnt have and have now taken put a loan to help with day-to-day running of it.
We went from being a big fish in a small pond to a part of the lower league order in no time. The perfect opportunity to lift the fans after the takeover fell through was to make an appointment which made a statement. They gave us Phil Parkinson and even patronised us by overpaying his achievements, knowing full well something like 0.5% of supporters over all polls voted for him.
They're as small-time as it's possible to be and ensured we go down that route with them but still, at least their acolytes have plenty of selfies to cherish in the Colliery Tavern.
Last edited:
KittenMittens
Midfield
I've had this conversation with GG and he seems a reasonable and decent chap (as I suspect we all are when we're not passionate about something!)
I think a lot of this is just people on all sides trying to be definitive about a very fluid process that believe me, when you go through it, is not as simple as 'yes' or 'no'. No deal is a done deal until you're signed off, even if you like the look of a business from the outside, you don't 'agree a takeover' of that business until you know what it's really like, which can only be done with due diligence. I suspect FPP were interested in assessing the whole club with a view to one day potentially owning us, that much I think we can all agree on?
As an analogy, FPP's directors might look at a Ferrari racecar going for a bargain price in a dealership and think from the outside it looks like a no-brainer, saying 'sod it, this is a bargain and look at it's performance last year, we'll get in there early and turn it into a race winner!' But once you get your own trusted mechanic under the hood and find this Ferrari you're looking at has 500,000 miles on the clock, you would probably think it was not quite what you assumed at first glance, and while you were waiting, that 4th place Ferrari is a 10th place family saloon. That's DD in a nutshell. You find out the reality, pay someone else to give a clear picture of what the risks and liabilities are etc, and keep an open mind.
In the end they went somewhere in the middle, implying that we have the engine of a Ferrari, but that it's f***ing knackered and needs a complete overhaul. They like our potential, they just see the flaws and think they could be fundamental to whether they buy us or not, so it looks like they've lent Donald the money to fix the engine (get out of this division) and if he does, it seems that they'll buy us.
If he doesn't, who knows what happens. Maybe he pays them back. Maybe they go and buy a Porsche instead. Maybe they decide to try and get their own mechanic in and buy us anyway because they can't get that first Ferrari out of their head. Maybe they give up on cars.
And maybe this is all wrong, but what I'm communicating here is that saying 'it was a takeover' or 'it wasn't a takeover' is a really absolute position to take on a subject that the parties involved were probably not as sure on
I think a lot of this is just people on all sides trying to be definitive about a very fluid process that believe me, when you go through it, is not as simple as 'yes' or 'no'. No deal is a done deal until you're signed off, even if you like the look of a business from the outside, you don't 'agree a takeover' of that business until you know what it's really like, which can only be done with due diligence. I suspect FPP were interested in assessing the whole club with a view to one day potentially owning us, that much I think we can all agree on?
As an analogy, FPP's directors might look at a Ferrari racecar going for a bargain price in a dealership and think from the outside it looks like a no-brainer, saying 'sod it, this is a bargain and look at it's performance last year, we'll get in there early and turn it into a race winner!' But once you get your own trusted mechanic under the hood and find this Ferrari you're looking at has 500,000 miles on the clock, you would probably think it was not quite what you assumed at first glance, and while you were waiting, that 4th place Ferrari is a 10th place family saloon. That's DD in a nutshell. You find out the reality, pay someone else to give a clear picture of what the risks and liabilities are etc, and keep an open mind.
In the end they went somewhere in the middle, implying that we have the engine of a Ferrari, but that it's f***ing knackered and needs a complete overhaul. They like our potential, they just see the flaws and think they could be fundamental to whether they buy us or not, so it looks like they've lent Donald the money to fix the engine (get out of this division) and if he does, it seems that they'll buy us.
If he doesn't, who knows what happens. Maybe he pays them back. Maybe they go and buy a Porsche instead. Maybe they decide to try and get their own mechanic in and buy us anyway because they can't get that first Ferrari out of their head. Maybe they give up on cars.
And maybe this is all wrong, but what I'm communicating here is that saying 'it was a takeover' or 'it wasn't a takeover' is a really absolute position to take on a subject that the parties involved were probably not as sure on
Last edited:
Red and white TID
Midfield
GarethQ
Striker
It was definitely a takeover. I know that Methven was briefing some involved with fanzines that it was a takeover, and that they should be drumming up excitement in the fanbase over the weekend it was due to complete. Whether they acted on it I don’t know. Methven was and is still texting fans privately even though he’s ‘not involved’.
Look at Paul Allan Walls twitter posts/activity over that weekend. He was an advisor at the club.
It was a takeover with FPP. It was a takeover with Mark Campbell. You have to ask the question as to why they failed on both occasions.
Red and white TID
Midfield
Your spot on that’s DD and they more than likely didn’t like a lot of what they seen under that bonnet, so wouldn’t pay what SD wanted, hence no del I mean deal and we are still stuck with this geezer running our club into the groundI've had this conversation with GG and he seems a reasonable and decent chap (as I suspect we all are when we're not passionate about something!)
I think a lot of this is just people on all sides trying to be definitive about a very fluid process that believe me, when you go through it, is not as simple as 'yes' or 'no'. No deal is a done deal until you're signed off, even if you like the look of a business from the outside, you don't 'agree a takeover' of that business until you know what it's really like, which can only be done with due diligence. I suspect FPP were interested in assessing the whole club with a view to one day potentially owning us, that much I think we can all agree on?
As an analogy, FPP's directors might look at a Ferrari racecar going for a bargain price in a dealership and think from the outside it looks like a no-brainer, saying 'sod it, this is a bargain and look at it's performance last year, we'll get in there early and turn it into a race winner!' But once you get your own trusted mechanic under the hood and find this Ferrari you're looking at has 500,000 miles on the clock, you would probably think it was not quite what you assumed at first glance, and while you were waiting, that 4th place Ferrari is a 10th place family saloon. That's DD in a nutshell. You find out the reality, pay someone else to give a clear picture of what the risks and liabilities are etc, and keep an open mind.
In the end they went somewhere in the middle, implying that we have the engine of a Ferrari, but that it's f***ing knackered and needs a complete overhaul. They like our potential, they just see the flaws and think they could be fundamental to whether they buy us or not, so it looks like they've lent Donald the money to fix the engine (get out of this division) and if he does, it seems that they'll buy us.
If he doesn't, who knows what happens. Maybe he pays them back. Maybe they go and buy a Porsche instead. Maybe they decide to try and get their own mechanic in and buy us anyway because they can't get that first Ferrari out of their head. Maybe they give up on cars.
And maybe this is all wrong, but what I'm communicating here is that saying 'it was a takeover' or 'it wasn't a takeover' is a really absolute position to take on a subject that the parties involved were probably not as sure on
fyl2u
Striker
So where's the lie?
- Status
